iPhone app rejection madness still hasn’t stopped

The rejection of an otherwise outstanding e-book reading application on the …

An iPhone app that can download and format free texts from Project Gutenberg has been rejected from the App Store on the basis of "objectionable content." Why? Because a translation of a respected, ancient Indian text that deals with matters of human sexual behavior can be downloaded and read using the app. The developer's attempts to solve the problem highlight the mysterious black box developers continue to face when trying to contact Apple for assistance.

The application, called Eucalyptus, is by all accounts a shining example of the sort of attention to detail that Apple encourages. The interface looks stellar and the text of books is set using "high-quality fonts and industry-leading typesetting routines" to achieve an effect not unlike reading a real book. It definitely outclasses Stanza and Kindle for iPhone in the looks and UI department, and most certainly gives Classics a run for its money.

However, reviewers at Apple have rejected the app (twice!) for violating the now-famous Section 3.3.12 "objectionable content" clause of the iPhone SDK Agreement. But that wasn't because the app itself contains any blue words or naked pictures of your mom. No, it's because someone could purposefully search for and download a Victorian-era, text-only version of the Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana. And while the Kama Sutra does discuss sex—in rather frank, but not vulgar, terms—it does so in only 10 of its 36 chapters.

This screen shows the reviewer specifically searched for the Kama Sutra.

The app's developer, James Montgomerie, is rightly bewildered when he wonders why Eucalyptus stands rejected while similar apps—notably eReader, Stanza, and Kindle for iPhone—are all able to download various versions of the Kama Sutra, some even with illustrations. We'll ignore for the moment the various apps that let you jiggle women's breasts, or even Mobile Safari itself, with which you can download actual porn as well as the exact same text from Project Gutenberg's website. Apple's insistence on rejecting the app, after it appears the reviewer specifically searched for the Kama Sutra, has blown right past absurdity into full-blown ineptitude.

The Kama Sutra discusses sex openly, but hardly compares to the average Penthouse Forums or even 4chan material.

To further add insult to injury, Montgomerie's repeated e-mails attempting to gain clarification on the issue were summarily ignored. If Apple doesn't have enough staff to reasonably assess the deluge of App Store submissions and to respond with legitimate developer inquiries with more than useless boilerplate responses, then it should invest in hiring more staff. Further, Apple should be doing a better job of communicating with developers whenever there are problems.

Thankfully, Montgomerie's second rejection included the helpful advice, "Parental Controls have been announced for iPhone OS 3.0. It would be appropriate to resubmit your application for review once this feature is available." While that suggests an appropriate rating might get the app approved as is, it would be silly for the existence of just one possibly objectionable book mean limiting access to hundreds of free, classic texts available from Project Gutenberg.

In the meantime, Montgomerie plans to add code to specifically block the Kama Sutra from appearing in search results. That's a lousy kludge, though—who's to say some other reviewer won't find another classic book with some phrase of explicit or otherwise "objectionable" nature? I heard Tom Sawyer has a really bad word in it; is that grounds for rejection?

This latest rejection highlights the slippery slope Apple has placed itself on as the sole gatekeeper for iPhone apps. After numerous apps have been rejected on spurious grounds, and later accepted, one would think Apple would be able to get its act together in this regard. The story of Eucalyptus leaves us doubting it will happen any time soon.